Should you be taking creatine? Here's what the science says 25%

By Jackie Flynn Mogensen0%

7/7/2026, 1:41:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Optimism Bias, and Overconfidence Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 248 hits. Analysis detected 1,739 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,013 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.7% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,427 of 20,540 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.10% of the article peer group.

Of all the dietary supplements out there, creatine is perhaps the one with the most fervent fan base. 
Long a favorite among athletes looking for a workout boost, creatine has been credited with tamping down perimenopausal mood swings, controlling blood sugar and perhaps even helping recovery from concussions. 
But what does the science say? 
It’s important to note that creatine is a dietary supplement, and it is not regulated in the same way as medications, which need to go through rounds of clinical trials to gain approval for sale by the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration. 
And the nutrition supplement market is notoriously rife with overblown claims and false advertising. 
When it comes to creatine, however, experts say there is some solid evidence backing the supplement up. 
Creatine is generally considered safe, and unlike many supplements, it has been studied for decades, particularly for its role in boosting strength and power in athletics, says Katherine Basbaum, a registered dietitian at the University of Virginia Health. 
In more recent years, some studies have suggested that creatine may support brain and muscle health as we age, too. 
But it’s far from a “magic bullet,” cautions Bonnie Jortberg, a professor of family medicine at the University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine. 
“You’re not going to start taking creatine, then all of a sudden feel like a new person.” 
To help sort the science from the hype, Scientific American spoke with health and nutrition experts about how creatine works and who might benefit the most from taking it. 
What does creatine do to your body? 
Creatine is a natural compound that your body produces and uses for energy, Basbaum explains. 
It’s made using three amino acids—arginine, glycine and methionine. 
You can also get creatine from your diet, by eating foods such as seafood and meats, or by taking a supplement, such as creatine monohydrate. 
Once ingested, creatine gets converted into a compound called creatine phosphate (also known as phosphocreatine), which helps supply adenosine triphosphate, or ATP, to your muscles. 
“Your brain and your muscles need energy,” Basbaum says. 
Creatine helps provide a rapid-acting and immediately available source of ATP. 
That’s why creatine can help athletes: more ready-to-use energy means more power in the gym and potentially more muscle growth. 
Is creatine FDA-approved? 
Creatine monohydrate is the most-studied form of creatine. 
Still, the FDA doesn’t assess and approve dietary supplements in the same way as for drugs. 
Rather, the agency has designated creatine monohydrate as a “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) substance. 
Decades of clinical evidence back that designation up. 
A 2025 analysis of more than 650 studies found creatine has no significant side effects compared with placebo. 
“The safety profile on creatines is very good,” says Richard Kreider, the first author on that paper and director of the Exercise & Sport Nutrition Lab at Texas A&M University. 
Creatine is also among the most popular sports supplements in the world, and the tally of adverse events associated with creatine in international registries is “very tiny,” Kreider says—around 0.0007 percent of adverse event reports mentioned creatine, his team’s analysis found. 
“There have now been, over the last 30 years, billions of servings, literally billions of servings, provided in dietary supplements. 
This is not new,” he says. 
(Kreider has conducted industry-sponsored creatine research and has served as an advisor for dietary supplement makers.) 
What do we know—or not know—about creatine? 
Overall, the strongest and most extensive evidence for creatine is as an “ergogenic aid” to support athletic performance, Basbaum says. 
Research shows it may help you lift slightly heavier weights at the gym, for instance, or push out a few more repetitions or help your muscles recover faster afterward. 
More recent evidence suggests creatine may help us stay healthy as we age, too. 
“What had started as a supplement for athletes and performance has now blossomed over the last 20 to 25 years into a supplement that clinical trials are showing efficacy in a number of therapeutic interventions,” Kreider says. 
The most promising of these avenues is “active aging,” he says. 
As we get older, our muscles tend to get weaker. 
Research suggests creatine, when combined with resistance training, may help maintain strength and muscle mass and prevent falls and injuries such as hip fractures in older populations, Kreider says. 
Creatine could also be helpful during perimenopause and menopause, when women may have a harder time building and maintaining muscle, Basbaum says. 
There is also preliminary evidence to suggest creatine may help support brain cognition for women during this time of life, possibly by supplying more ATP to brain cells, Jortberg says. 
“These are limited studies, but I think they’re promising. 
[Findings suggest] that creatine may be beneficial—‘may be’ is the keyword there—when it comes to mental cognition,” Jortberg adds. 
To improve athletic performance, the International Society of Sports Nutrition recommends people take about three to five grams of creatine monohydrate per day. 
For more rapid results, some athletes might start with a “loading” period of about 0.3 gram per kilogram of creatine monohydrate for five to seven days, the organization says. 
But the exact amount will vary based on your body’s needs. 
Is there anyone who shouldn’t take creatine? 
Experts were divided on this question. 
Creatine is generally considered safe, but Jortberg says that kidney problems could interfere with your body’s ability to process the supplement. 
“People who might have any kind of a kidney issue or any kind of compromised kidney function should absolutely not be taking a creatine supplement,” she says. 
Kreider, on the other hand, argues that those fears are overblown. 
“The fact is that there’s no evidence that creatine causes any adverse effect to kidney function, even in patients with kidney disease,” he says. 
Still, the experts Scientific American spoke to agreed that if you’re interested in taking creatine, it’s best to consult a doctor first. 
“Anytime you take a dietary supplement of any kind, it goes without saying that it’s good to check with your health care provider,” Basbaum says, “creatine or otherwise.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 4.4%Scientific American: 3.0%Confirmation Bias3.5%This article: 0.3%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.3%This article: 8.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 4.5%Scientific American: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 3.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.7%Scientific American: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias9.5%This article: 3.7%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.4%Scientific American: 4.2%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.4%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.6%Scientific American: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.4%This article: 2.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.4%Scientific American: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.0%This article: 14.2%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 3.7%Scientific American: 3.0%Optimism Bias14.2%This article: 7.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 1.1%Pessimism Bias7.1%This article: 1.4%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.6%Scientific American: 3.3%Negativity Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.5%Scientific American: 0.9%Halo Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.3%Scientific American: 0.8%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 2.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 0.2%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.3%Straw Man2.8%This article: 24.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 13.7%Scientific American: 4.3%Appeal to Authority24.5%This article: 5.4%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.8%False Dilemma5.4%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 11.4%Scientific American: 4.1%Hasty Generalization24.1%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.8%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.8%Scientific American: 0.6%Bandwagon1.8%This article: 0.9%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion0.9%This article: 0.7%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.6%Begging the Question0.7%This article: 4.9%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.9%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.4%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.3%Scientific American: 0.6%Burden of Proof2.4%This article: 1.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.3%Scientific American: 0.4%Appeal to Nature1.5%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.6%Scientific American: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.7%Scientific American: 0.3%Middle Ground4.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.7%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.2%Special Pleading2.7%This article: 1.6%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.5%Scientific American: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy1.6%This article: 4.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.7%Scientific American: 0.7%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 0.5%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.1%Scientific American: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.5%This article: 8.9%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 2.7%Scientific American: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice8.9%This article: 3.3%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 1.0%Scientific American: 1.8%Indoctrination3.3%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.0%Scientific American: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Jackie Flynn Mogensen: 0.9%Scientific American: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.1%

1013 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers54%attributed speech464writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 24 words • 100.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 15 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 30 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 41 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 20 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 37 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 22 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 30 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 19 words • 0.0% coverageInternational Society of Sports Nutrition • 23 words • 100.0% coverageInternational Society of Sports Nutrition • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 21 words • 0.0% coverageBonnie Jortberg • 27 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 11 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Kreider • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKatherine Basbaum • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words9.5% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%International Society of Sports Nutrition: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%International Society of Sports Nutrition: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%International Society of Sports Nutrition: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%International Society of Sports Nutrition: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.